Anarchistic update news all over the world 26 February 2015

Today's 6 Topics:

1. Britain, south wales anarchists: Afiach Release Two Benefit
Compilations, to coincide with Cardiff Anarchist Bookfair
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)

2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - feminism, August 1st
March fight for equality women / men at work and in life (fr, it,
pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)

3. WSM.ie: Why elections fail to bring about real change by
Andrew Flood (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)

4. anarkismo.net: YPG: We have no connection to the Ankara
bombing. Turkey prepares the ground to attack Rojava
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)

5. wsm.ie: /c/luas-strike-regime-media- - Luas Strikes: Rage
Against the Regime Media bias by Tom Murray (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)

6. Greece, Freedom to Sanaa Taleb and to all detained in
immigrant detention center (gr) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1



The two compilations ‘If It Was Easy They Wouldn’t Call It A Struggle’ and ‘Prosecute The 
Arms Dealers’, are both officialy released on the 20th of February 2016, to coincide with 
this years’ Cardiff Anarchist Bookfair. ---- One of the compilations will be raising money 
for Stop The Cardiff Arms Fair, and the other for Cardiff Defendant Solidarity. Both these 
causes are very worthy and currently relevant. In the Cardiff Motorpoint Arena, DPRTE will 
be hosting their arms fair – they moved to Cardiff after leaving Bristol following massive 
protests. We hope the same will happen in Cardiff, so get involved in resisting the arms 
fair on March 16th 2016. Cardiff Defendant Solidarity helps and supports people going 
through the legal system, who need funds. Often for those facing charges, their expenses 
and fines add up quickly and adds more pressure and worry.

Donate or purchase online, share on your social media sites and come to the Cardiff 
Anarchist Bookfair or any other ‘Afiach’ stalls to pick up a CD.
100% of proceeds go straight to these groups.
*****************************************************************
The Track-Listing ……..
Afiach # 7 – If It Was Easy, They Wouldn’t Call It A Struggle
(Cardiff Defendant Solidarity Benefit)
CD
1. Prison Abolition – Conscious Youth
2. Snow is Freedom – Tracey Curtis
3. Dangerous – WOWZA
4. Turbid Milieu – Grand Collapse
5. Tear Apart The Walls – Cistem Failure
6. Disgrace – Petrol Girls
7. I Wish There Was No Prisons – Cosmo
8. The Otherside – Will Tun & The Wasters
9. By Morning – Evan Greer
10. The Hunt – Failed State
11. Burn It Down – Jugganote
12. Jack Shit – Efa Supertramp
13. Until All Are Free – Rover
14. Fine Lines – Rufus Mufasa
15. A State of Affairs – Ap Cooper
16. Your Laws – Kilnaboy
17. Tân yn dy ‘Sgyfaint – Radio Rhydd
18. Squat Rave – SubFire
19. Don’t Worry – Jamey P
20. The Process – Brian Curran
21. Experiment – Joe Dirt
22. Watch Your Back – Primeval Soup
Full Digital Album also features:
23. P.R.S (Live) – Public Order Act
24. The World Is Ours – Gab De La Vega
25. Reveal The Sharks – We Are Animals
26. Fe Gerddaf Gyda Thi (remix) – Roughion
27. Different – Bibi
28. Too Blind To See It – Smiler
29. Yrth Quackin’ – Zhubat
30. Fuck Off – Spam Javelin
31. Gemini Whatever Happened To You – Jacob Nico
32. Think What You Like – Ferny Mac
33. Jiffy Hoof Out – Mwstard
34. One World Riot – Primeval Soup
35. Apocalypse Dub – Preppa
36. CCTV – Deadbeat
37. Coming Home – Pog
DOWNLOAD / PURCHASE CD HERE.
***********************************************************
Afiach # 8 – Prosecute The Arms Fair
(Stop Cardiff Arms Fair Benefit)
1. System – Petrol Girls
2. Vampire – Black Star Dub Collective
3. Heddwch VIP – Roughion
4. Enter The International Court of Justice – Atterkop
5. Ladybug Ladybug – Conformist
6. Three Little Piggies – SubFire
7. Y Byd ar Dân – X4C
8. Missiles On The Roof – Holiday
9. Refusenicks – Kilnaboy
10. Help Define Heroes – Emissaries of Syn
11. Politricks – Spred The Dub
12. Survivor’s Parade – Pog
13. History’s Lies – Viva Zapata
14. Their Eyes (feat. Taina Asili) – Evan Greer
15. Pollution Evolution – Bratakus
16. For My Brothers – Jugganote
17. All The Girls Love a Soldier – Tracey Curtis
18. Not Wrinkles, Not Bombs – Mwstard
19. Billy Was My Buddy – Garden Folk
20. Hook, Line and Sinker – Johnny Campbell
21. They’ll Speak of us for Years – Zebedy
Full Digital Album also features:
22. F.E.A.R (feat. Efa Supertramp & Secret Weapons) – Clusterfuck
23. Byd ‘di Blino – Radio Rhydd
24. These Streets Are Ours – Cosmo
25. Nation Violation – Failed State
26. Like Waves – Gab De La Vega
27. Zero Degrees – Ferny Mac
28. It’s Not The End of The World Yet – Days & Ages
29. Black Skies – Worthy Victims
30. Be The Best – The Manifest
31. Vote Your Friends In – Smiler
32. History – Noah
33. All My Friends Are Freedom Fighters – Efa Supertramp
34. Steadiness Is Lying – Jacob Nico
35. Let’s Blow Up The World – Alaric Newnham
36. Y Stryd – Terfysg
37. War Puppet – Sods Law
38. Racists – 51st State
39. Weasels? – Internationalcuntcircus
40. F.N.W.O – Rufus Pearce
41. Jen Dalsi Pisen Proti Valce – Hledani
42. Pork Beli – Zhubat
43. Zombie Dub – Zombie Dub
DOWNLOAD / PURCHASE CD HERE.

https://southwalesanarchists.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/afiach-release-two-benefit-compilations-to-coincide-with-cardiff-anarchist-bookfair/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 2



March 8 is the international day of struggle for women's rights worldwide. Women's 
struggles helped conquer rights and progress towards equality between women and men. March 
8: Fight, Let's strike, Protest, beauteous us, we draw all festive and symbolic actions! 
---- The March 8, which celebrates the history of these struggles, is more than a symbol. 
It is the international day of struggle for women's rights worldwide. This is not the day 
of "the" woman, as the media delight in repeating. We refuse the recovery of this day for 
commercial purposes, with advertisements offering of "celebrate" with a gift or 
distribution of flowers at the place of work ... probably best to forget the rest of the 
year, the extent of inequalities that remain to fight.

Toulouse, March 2013 © Kevin Fig Tree / Square Info.
In society women are all equal but nowhere!

Women are affected by wage and pension inequality, the part-time work, job insecurity, 
they are mostly in charge of domestic and family tasks, the minority in positions of 
political and economic responsibility. They are too often victims of multiple forms of 
violence: rape, domestic violence, gender-based and sexual violence at work, lesbophobia, 
prostitution, racist attacks, violence against refugee women. Women are the first victims 
of wars.

Today more than ever we need to come together, converging our struggles for equality and 
against all forms of violence. The austerity policies, the rise of the extreme right and 
the return of religious extremism needed more than ever regressions for women:

The law Rebsamen (dilution status reports and comparative negotiations professional 
equality), the Macron law (Sunday work and night), even more precarious the situation of 
women The drastic reduction in public spending endangers public services and particularly 
affects women: threat on child care, on access to the right to abortion (150 abortion 
centers closed in 10 years), access to care (including the remoteness of maternity 
services ...)

The reduction or even the end of government subsidies threatens the very existence of 
women's associations that work every day for women The extremist movements have managed to 
bury the ABC of equality in school and threaten the right to abortion. They refuse the 
LDCs for all women.

cc laetitiablabla

TO ACT! Make all the struggles of women visible!

As hairdressers and manicurists of the Boulevard de Strasbourg, as the maids of the big 
hotels, like Greek maids, like the women of Latelec in Tunisia, like all anonymous who say 
all STOP days to all forms of violence, as all those who work every day for the right of 
women, doing the voices of women!

Let us fight for equal pay, against imposed part-time and precarious.

Impose the sharing of domestic tasks. Women are not genetically programmed to do this 
work. Enough of the double day!

To reverse the patriarchal system and achieve equality, both at work, in the family and in 
society as a whole, 8 March should not be a day-night. More than ever, it must be part of 
a dynamic of mobilization, women's struggles and claims, here and around the world,

On the basis of this text, the signatories call to strengthen or create everywhere unitary 
collectives to prepare all 8 March struggles, protest, feminists and union. Made reach 
signatures (organizations only collectifdroitsdesfemmes@gmail.com)

Two events in Paris

Rally March 8th at 12:30 in front of the MEDEF, 55 avenue Bosquet, Paris 7e, Military 
School metro.

And to top the day event March 8 at night, go to 18 hours at the Fountain of the 
Innocents, Les Halles metro. We will go to Saint-Lazare.

First signatories: National Collective for Women's Rights, Alternative Libertaire, ANEF, 
CGT, Bitches Garda Collectif20éme / Tenon, Lesbian Coordination in France, DIDF- 
Federation of Associations of workers and youth, Equality Women Together, Women Free FSU, 
the brazen, House of Montreuil Women, NPA, UFAL, Solidarity Trade Union.

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?un-8-mars-de-lutte-pour-l-egalite

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 3



The 10 filters that make them ineffective for the radical left ---- Why can’t the 99% 
simply vote in a government that acts in their interest and not that of the 1% ---- At a 
simple level parliamentary elections sound like the ideal way for the mass of the ‘have 
nots’ to use their numbers to overcome the power and influences of the tiny number of 
have’s. Occupy talked about this division in the language of the 1% and 99%; a crude 
approximation that does reflect a reality where the number of wealthy decision makers is 
actually very tiny, indeed less than 1%. So, why can’t the 99% simply vote in a government 
that acts in their interest and not that of the 1%? ---- Let’s start off by acknowledging 
that this is not through lack of trying. The fight for the full franchise in the 19th 
century was very much caught up with the idea that once everyone had the vote a government 
of the working majority could be elected and that would redistribute wealth in the 
interests of all.

It was not just a large section of then left that saw things this way, the wealthy elite 
also did and they were terrified of the mass franchise for that reason. But they came to 
see that the sort of educated workforce they increasingly needed in their developing 
society could not be denied forever and so switched from opposition to the franchise to 
granting it only after they had worked out how to contain it and use to their advantage. 
Their ability to control the vote and electoral system was clearly demonstrated in the 
20th Century when again after again left governments were elected but fundamental change 
was almost always avoided. How was this achieved?

Anarchists are sometimes guilty of over simplifying this process along the lines of the 
old slogan ‘If voting changed anything it would be illegal’. The argument being that if a 
radical government was elected the capitalist class would overthrow it by using its 
influence over the military to stage a coup. There are plenty of historical examples of 
just this happening, Chile in 1973 being one that is often cited. But it’s a crude over 
simplification that would mean in much of the OECD countries we haven’t see interference 
in the ‘democratic process’ for a long period of time. In fact as we see a coup is just 
the desperate last measure if all else fails. The preferred method is to filter out 
radical change and replace it with harmless window dressing and minor reform.

One way of understanding how this happens is to compare the process to a filtration 
system. Each filter in the system is designed to catch a particular type of threat. 
Ideally those being filtered are not only unaware this is happening but actually 
co-operate in the process. What are these filters?

1. Costs?

The first filter is relatively obvious and is often acknowledged particularly by those on 
the left. Running in elections is an expensive business in most countries. In some 
countries like the US the amount of money candidates spend strongly predicts who the 
winner will be. Under the US system a lot of information is disclosed about election 
finances and the Opensecrets website has gathered a lot of this information which we use 
here as a detailed example. Elsewhere, especially in Ireland, there is a lot of secrecy 
with many cash donations being made in brown envelopes and so never recorded. However if 
the public US results show that are elections funded by the richest section of the 
population we can only assume the real figures, if known, would be much worse for Ireland.

From 1968 to 2008 there have been 11 US presidential elections, in 9 of the 11 elections 
the winning candidate has been the one with the most money. The case is similar in the 
2012 elections to Congress, of the 435 seats that candidates filed their expenditure for, 
409 of them had spent more money in their races. In only 26 - or 6% of cases - was the 
candidate with the most money defeated - and some of those cases were where that candidate 
had been exposed as a complete crook or caught sniffing cocaine at a gangster’s birthday 
party. Remember that in 2014 the top 0.1% of the US population owned as much wealth as 
everyone in the bottom 90%. If wealth decides election the 0.1% in effect get to outvote 
the 90%.

So how much money are we talking about and who contributed it?

In the same US electoral cycle in 2012 a total of $6285 million was spent on the elections 
with $2621 million spent on the presidential race. Most of that money came from a tiny 
number of people, 63% came from just 0.4% of the population. And that in an election where 
there were far more donors that usual thanks to the Obama effect. The top individual donor 
gave 93 million, the top business (an American casino and resort operating company) gave 
$53 million.

You can understand for yourself what effect such funding has on policy passed but some 
rather technical research by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern 
University Prof Benjamin has shown that “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic 
elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent 
impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups 
have little or no independent influence.” In other words the policies the rich want passed 
by politicians gets passed, the policies the rest of us want generally don’t.

So in what is only our first filter, the money a candidate has to spend on an election 
turns out to determine the winner in over 90% of cases in the US. Given the enormous 
amount of wealth that the richest 1% hold this on its own almost allows them to determine 
that the results of elections will be favourable to them. The handful of exceptions are, 
if anything essential to maintaining the illusion that the vote of ordinary workers has 
any value at all. Being able to elect the occasional radical brings workers who may have 
lost faith in electoral, change back into the process. And not being able to stop the 
re-election of politicians who are caught accepting bribes would be disastrous as very 
large numbers of people might start to look at other mechanisms for change.

2. Media

During elections a lot of the money goes towards advertising. In the US this comes in the 
form of TV and radio ads, in Ireland we’re more accustomed to billboards, posters and 
leaflets. But alongside such advertising is the exposure a candidate is given by the media 
and as importantly the nature of that exposure. Are they given soft questions and allowed 
to waffle in their replies or are the toughest questions fired at them and no deviation 
allowed? Are their press conferences and stunts even covered at all? Are rumours and 
speculation about them reported or ignored?

All of these choices have huge impacts on how a candidate is viewed, not to mention the 
media is not some sort of level playing field. Much of it is owned by the same multi 
billionaires who donate to the political parties and even when it’s not explicitly stated 
journalists know it can be career destroying to report against the owners’ interests.

One clear example from Ireland is when multi millionaire, Tony O’Reilly, controlled the 
Independent Media Group - in turn it controlled most non-state media outlets. It was only 
years later as he went bankrupt that one of his journalists revealed in a looking back 
article that “The one clear, consistent policy was that there was to be no truck with 
republicanism [ i.e. Sinn Fein]”

In the UK the Murdoch (another billionaire) controlled press claimed to have decided the 
1992 and 2015 elections by running blatantly biased front page stories right before the 
election. In the 2015 case the Independent reported that “Mr Murdoch personally instructed 
The Sun to turn the heat up against Mr Miliband, telling editors that the very future of 
News Corp depended upon the result.”

3. Separation of powers

Many so called democracies have limits to what parliament can decide in order to slow down 
or eliminate certain types of reforms. Often there is some sort of second parliamentary 
layer that is much less subject to any sort of popular mandate because it’s either not 
elected at all as with the UK House of Lords or its elected only by certain limited and 
often elite constituencies as with the Irish senate, many of whose other seats are filled 
by appointment. The abolition of capitalism under most systems would not be a legal act 
and the legal system is protected from the parliamentary system in a way that would not 
allow this to be rapidly changed. In the US for instance the all powerful Supreme Court is 
composed of judges appointed by the ruling parties who then remain on the court until they 
die, ensuring that a new government cannot replace them.

Over time these filters combined prevent most electoral parties making significant 
anti-capitalist changes in parliament in the short term and in the medium term house train 
such parties so that they no longer even try. But sometimes the pressure for change is 
such that enough people get elected quickly who share an ideological program that is 
relatively resistant in the short term to these influences. Such events are rare but they 
are important because they lead to demoralisation and despair when they successfully get 
radical movements behind them, or to straight up coup, counter revolution and massacre of 
a movement that has not prepared for armed defence.

4. Scare mongering

When there are prolonged crises caused by major crashes in capitalism it can get to the 
stage where all the establishment parties have been in power and have been rejected by the 
people. That can lead to the situation where despite a lack of finance and media hostility 
a window opens where a radical party of the left (or far right) can emerge and gain a lot 
of votes quickly from an unhappy population. Or there can be a sudden shift of power 
within an establishment party bringing someone on the fringes to the centre, as happened 
in 2015 with the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the UK British Labour 
Party and may be happening right now with Bernie Saunders in the USA..

This is where the gloves start to come off and an additional filter comes into play, that 
of outright scare mongering where lies are told and repeated by the establishment about 
such new parties and leaders. The short term impact of this can be enormous but in the 
medium to long term it’s a risky strategy as it will tarnish the reputations of those that 
use it. But the process by which the radical left makes an electoral breakthrough is very 
often short term, taking advantage of a window of opportunity that briefly opens due to 
mass struggle, scandal or crisis (or all three together).

These mechanisms normally prevent a small party suddenly making enough gains to win an 
election. In particular the enormous expense of elections means that a small party without 
wealthy backers will only be able to focus on a small number of electoral areas and so has 
no hope of suddenly gaining enough seats to rule. This is widely recognised so the 
electoral left aims at a process of accumulation over time; winning a few seats in the 
first election, and then building on that in subsequent elections.??Looking at how such 
strategies worked out in the past you see that parties who are successful in this strategy 
end up abandoning their once radical politics by the time they come anywhere close to 
power. Why does this happen?

5. House training

When a worker gets elected to parliament they are no longer a worker but become part of 
the set of people who rule us - retaining radical ideas in your head does not influence 
that new relationship. Economically parliamentarians are paid many multiples of the 
minimum wage in most countries, often they are amongst the highest paid salary workers in 
a country. They often quickly qualify for a large pensions even if they lose their seat. 
And there are a huge amount of additional financial benefits both legal as in expenses, 
and dubious as in being given paid positions on company boards and illegal in the form of 
bribes.

They start to mix with and get flattered by an entirely different class of people than 
whom they were previously exposed to. Their opinion becomes important, if they co-operate 
and if they work well with others they can tweak legislation in a way that ‘delivers’ for 
those who elected them, boosting their chance of re-election. It would be foolish indeed 
to insist that every individual elected would be immune to the temptation to shift a 
little under such pressures. Any look at the history of left groups that get people 
elected to power demonstrates that most of them shift a lot. In Ireland the Workers Party 
of the 1980s managed to get seven left TDs elected. Over time 6 of the 7 abandoned any 
pretence of radical politics, eventually merged with the Labour Party and as the new 
leadership of that party became the implementators of austerity after the first election 
during the crisis. Much less was expected of the Green Party but they followed the same 
path, flipping from opposing the deeply unpopular Shell Corrib gas project in opposition 
to running the ministry implementing it in power.

Some individuals don’t give in. Tomas Mac Giolla stayed with the Workers Party and no one 
would suggest Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party had his hand in the till. But that’s 
fine, most parliaments do well out of having a court jester whose role is to speak truth 
to power and be laughed at while doing so. Anyone who watches televised parliamentary 
proceeding will know that this is literally what happens when such politicians stand up to 
tell the truth to an almost empty chamber.

6. Expertise

The other pitfall for elected parliamentarians is that they are unlikely to have much 
expertise when it comes to many of the decisions they are making. The British TV comedies 
Yes Minister and The Thick of It were based around the way top civil servants and party 
advisors run rings around Ministers who can’t really grasp the detail of much of what they 
are deciding. More seriously the 29 September 2008 Irish Banking Guarantee when the 
Minister for Finance effectively saddled the population of Ireland with tens of billions 
of bank losses was in part a product of the minister being bamboozled by banking experts.

Expertise can not only trick (or provide cover for) politicians into making decisions that 
go against our interests but in the medium and longer term result in politicians 
increasingly valuing the opinion of experts over those who elected them. Indeed the 2008 
Financial crisis produced a rhetoric coming from the establishment of how good politicians 
listened to such experts and made tough unpopular decisions while bad politicians listened 
to their electorate. Parliaments are set up so that the electorate cannot mandate 
politicians on how to vote for exactly that reason, indeed it’s often not legally valid to 
try and create mechanisms to mandate politicians.

7. Taking power

Parties that have limited electoral success can resist these temptations very much easier 
when they are too small to matter. It becomes very much more difficult when they have 
enough electoral success to be worth bargining with. Negotiations only make sense with a 
party that is big enough for the number of seats they hold to make a difference. In that 
case the offer is made that some policies they get elected on will be implemented in 
return for them entering government. An offer that has proven very hard to resist for both 
party members and the people who voted for the party on that issue.

In the mid 2000s the Irish Green Party went into coalition with Fianna Fail and did get 
some policies that promoted cycling and energy efficency in return. But they reversed 
their opposition to the gigantic Corrib project under construction by Shell and instead 
took up the ministry that was in effect implementing that project. Literally, they 
arrested those they had once stood alongside in opposing the project. And when the banking 
crash happened they passed the gurantee that that will mean austerity for years as the 64 
billion required is paid back out of a public purse that otherwise could be used for 
health, education and public transport improvements. Alongside the Corrib project the 
Green Parties slice of power cost ordinary people in Ireland over 100 billion that could 
have been used to fund public services.

This is not an uncommon story. It turns out that offers of coalition (for small parties) 
or constituency perks for individuals are seldom resisted. Even without the bribe of 
taking power and the ministerial mercs, salaries and pensions that go with that it’s 
unlikely the electorate will understand a refusal to take power, in particular if it leads 
to another immediate election.

8. Careerism

The people who join marginal far left parties obviously don’t do so for career reasons. 
But for those parties that have electoral success, particularly if its based on running 
broad front organisations with watered down politics, this will change. In particular 
outside of core areas that party may offer the best chance for someone whose motivation, 
at least in part, includes wanting access to the power and earning power or a professional 
politician. And its not that easy to say no as most electoral systems reward parties who 
have more members, candidates and elected officials over those with less. The extra person 
can mean considerably more access to the media, speaking time in the chamber and even the 
ability to move motions that might actually get debated. They may also mean the difference 
in being able to hold the balance of power and to carry or pass key votes. This is another 
mechanism by which a successful radical electoralist party is shifted over the course of a 
couple of electoral cycles to something a lot more house trained as such careerists are 
likely to put their own electability above all else.

9. The terror of the market

A party in power that tried to implement any sort of anti-capitalist program would quickly 
find itself trying to run a society subjected to the terror of the market.

Market terrorism has become a very much more potent force as the economy has increasingly 
globalised and finance has shifted to electronic systems. Billions of dollars can be 
quickly sucked out of an economy by such means leaving a country unable to make loan 
repayments and so unable to buy food and medical imports or pay public sector workers.

When Syriza came to power in Greece in early 2015 we saw market terrorism force them to 
their knees within a few short months. This despite not only their electoral mandate but 
the very much stronger mandate they gained from the anti-austerity referendum they staged 
right before they were forced to capitulate. Any radical left government will be subjected 
to similar and worse levels of market terrorism. The only defence against it is a 
revolutionary one where capitalist assets are seized and redeployed and rebellion is 
encouraged in other countries. But as Syriza demonstrated you can’t get elected on the 
promise that a compromise can be negotiated and then overnight win the population to 
revolution instead. They were forced to their knees through the use of economic terror, a 
terror fully sanctioned by the Troika.

This filter is deployed relatively frequently, particularly outside of Europe and North 
America. It often takes the form of a currency crisis as vast sums are quickly transferred 
out of a country. It even happened in France, one of the G7 economies, in the early 1980s 
when capital flight was used to defeat a radical set of reforms that the newly elected 
Mitterrand government intended to introduce.

10. Coup

Our last filter is the one that anarchists often first describe, where the military are 
used to bring down a popular government in a coup. A surprising amount of so called 
democracies even build this possibility into their constitution. The Spanish constitution 
for instance refers to the “indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation” which has allowed 
the Spanish military to threaten a coup if too much autonomy is given to any of the 
regions. On January 7 2006 for instance Lieutenant-General Jose Mena Aguado, the commander 
of Spain’s 50,000 ground troops threatened, “The armed forces have a mission to guarantee 
the sovereignty and independence of Spain.... The constitution establishes a series of 
impassable limits for any statute of autonomy. But if those limits are crossed, which 
fortunately seems unthinkable at present, it would be necessary to apply Article 8 of the 
constitution—the armed forces, including the army, the navy and the air force, have the 
duty to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain, and to defend its integrity 
and constitutional order”

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the British Labour Party the Sunday Times quoted 
a senior serving general who had served in Northern Ireland as saying “The Army just 
wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise 
the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or 
foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.”

It’s significant that the general was never named in the media although as we were told he 
had been based in the north in the 1980s so the media must have known his identity. The 
Ministry of Defence condemned the remarks but no disciplinary action was taken. And Corbyn 
hardly even represented a serious future never mind present threat to UK capitalism.

The overthrowing of the Allende government of Chile in 1973 is probably the best known of 
the coups against reformist governments but in the period after WWII there were literally 
dozens of coups across the world designed to favour multinationals and block radical 
reforms. The only reason we haven’t seen many in western Europe is because the filters 
already described have been enough to block movements of electoral reform. The abolition 
of the Greater London Council in 1986 by Thatcher provided a title for Ken Livingston’s 
biography, “If voting change’d anything they’d abolish it.” Livingston, the head of the 
GLC prior to its abolition, would have been well aware he was repurposing an anarchist slogan.

From time to time an establishment government makes such a huge mess of people’s lives 
that the next election becomes a significant moment of mobilisation and expectation. Now 
everything will change, or so we are told. But soon the new lot in power very quickly look 
like the old lot who were thrown out. And all too often once the next election arrives the 
old lot get back in again and the cycle continues.

Those on the left who are believers in the power of parliamentary elections to bring real 
change hate these patterns being pointed out. In order to get people to vote for them they 
need to sell the electoral process to the more impoverished and marginalised groups of 
society. They need to get them to reengage, often by suggesting that their marginalisation 
is a result of them not voting previously and so being ignored. This victim blaming is a 
reverse of the real situation, that people ignore the electoral process because they know 
from experience it has not delivered meaningful change for them.

Is it worth it?

Those on the radical left who see electoralism as a legitimate tactic would probably 
accept the existence of most, if not all of the above filters. The more orthodox of them 
insist that they are only using elections as a dung heap on which to stand so that they 
can be seen and heard by the masses. Although rather obviously that’s not what they put on 
their election literature, which repeats the electoral mantra ‘Elect us and we can Change 
things’. If there were no costs this might be a reasonable argument. After all as well as 
the publicity of the electoral process itself the salaries of elected officials and their 
expenses including the hire of officers, research assistants and transports can amount to 
hundreds of thousands of euro that would be very difficult to raise by other means.

But the cost is also enormous as such participation has not only eroded the radicalism of 
all parties that have had any real success but done so in a way that very often leaves the 
movements and individuals that got sucked in disillusioned and burned out. The parties 
that want to try again may try and counter that effect through presenting failures as a 
product of a betrayal by flawed leaders - and of course promising that they will be 
different but the experience has been that such defeats are the points struggle in general 
recedes and even collapses - too often accompanied by an electoral swing to the right.

The more insidious cost is that in order to get votes the parties and individuals involved 
have to convince sections of the population that have quite correctly rejected 
electoralism that they should participate once more. The medium to long term success of 
the electoral system in limiting struggle depends on these periodic revitalisations from 
the left. Indeed if you look back at the period from the early 20th century when the 
universal franchise started to become common you can observe a cycle of the energy of 
revolutionary upsurges being channelled into long marches through institutionalised power 
that go nowhere. Sometimes they win reforms for a period that are subsequently rolled 
back, frequently by the same party as it ‘matures’.

The task of anarchists is to convince the mass of the population that radical 
transformations can happen, that there is a point to politics. We have nothing to gain 
from cynicism about electoralism in itself But radical change must come about outside and 
against the electoralist cycle. Rather than a language of revolution amounting to 
‘defeating the government’ at the ballot box we need to ensure revolution is understood as 
a transformation that sees mass, collective self-organisation in our housing estates, 
communities and workplaces replacing the rule of governments, landlords and bosses.

WORDS: Andrew Flood (Follow Andrew on Twitter )

Add Your Comments >>

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29109

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 4



The General Command of the People's Defence Units (YPG) has released a statement in 
response to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who blamed the YPG for yesterday's 
attack in the heart of Turkish capital Ankara which left 28 people dead and 64 others 
wounded. ---- YPG General Command said they have no links to the attack, remarking that 
Davutoglu put forward this accusation to pave the way for an offensive on Rojava and 
Syria. The General Command stressed that YPG hasn't engaged in any kind of military 
activity against the Turkish state so far in spite of all its attacks and provocations. 
---- We hereby publish the full text of the related statement by YPG General Command; ---- 
"As is known to our people and the public opinion, the Rojava revolution has entered its 
4th year. As the YPG forces, we are protecting our people in Rojava region from the very 
first day on. Under challenging conditions, we are protecting our people from barbaric 
gangs such as ISIS and Al-Nusra. Countless states and media outlets have repeatedly 
reported about the support Turkey has been providing to these terrorist groups. Apart from 
the terrorist groups attacking us, we as YPG have engaged in no military activity against 
the neighboring states or other forces. Despite all its provocations and attacks on Rojava 
border, we have acted with historic responsibility and never retailated Turkey. During the 
past 4 years, Rojava is the safest area of Turkey-Syria border, and there has been no 
military action conducted by our side during this period. This truth is best known to the 
Turkish military and AKP government. They are deliberately distorting the truths and 
holding us responsible for the explosion in Ankara.

We would like to reiterate our message to the peoples of Turkey and the world; We have no 
links to this incident. It is not specific to this case alone, as we have never been 
involved in an attack against Turkey. The Turkish state cannot possibly prove our 
engagement in any kind of attack on their side because we were never involved in such an 
action. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu's remarks "Ankara attack was conducted by YPG" is 
a lie and far from the truth. With this statement, Davutoglu wants to pave the way for an 
offensive on Syria and Rojava, and to cover up their relations with the ISIS which is 
known to the whole world by now.

As the People's Defence Units-YPG, we state once again that we have no links to the 
explosion in Ankara, and we call upon all neighboring states and forces to respect the 
Rojava revolution and will of peoples." Source ANF.

KQ adds: The Democratic Union Party (PYD), to whom the YPG is affiliated, said it 
"completely refuted" the claims of its involvement.

Saleh Muslim, co-chair of PYD, also denied claims the YPG was firing into Turkey. "They 
don't consider Turkey as an enemy," he told Reuters news agency.

Related Link: 
http://kurdishquestion.com/index.php/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/we-have-no-connection-to-ankara-turkey-are-preparing-ground-to-attack-rojava/1468-we-have-no-connection-to-ankara-turkey-are-preparing-ground-to-attack-rojava.html

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29105

------------------------------

Message: 5



To all of Ireland’s regime media - just what exactly is your problem with striking Luas 
workers? ---- The media demonising striking Luas workers suits their boss, Transdev, just 
fine. However, demonising striking workers suits your boss just fine too. ---- An 
experiment...Let’s look at a series of headlines generated at random by typing “Luas 
strike” and the name of one of seven news outlets (RTÉ, Irish Times, Irish Independent, 
Irish Sun, Irish Mirror, Journal.ie, Breakingnews.ie) into a search engine. Taking the 
first two articles gives us a total of 14 news headlines from Thursday and Friday. ---- 
Here are the results:- ---- RTÉ ---- Travel disruption over second 48-hour Luas strike 
---- €50m Luas strike warning ahead of two-day stoppage ---- Irish Mirror ---- Luas 
strikes to coincide with 1916 centenary commemorations and cause travel chaos across Dublin

Travel mayhem in store for Dublin commuters as Luas strike set to go ahead

Irish Sun

Luas workers confirm two 48-hour strikes which will cause commuter chaos for Dublin

Second Luas strike hits commuters... as union warns tram stoppages set to continue for MONTHS

Irish Independent

Commuter chaos as snow-ice warning hits part of the country, and Luas strike hits 90,000

Minister: No plan to halt strike by Luas workers

Irish Times

Luas strikes: ‘This is not what Larkin had in mind’

Vox pop: Striking Luas workers elicit little sympathy

Journal.ie

Luas drivers accused of ‘putting a gun to the head’ of Workplace Relations Commission.

Will you be walking to work today? No end in sight as Luas strikes enter day 3.

Breakingnews.ie

Luas drivers 'very sorry' about strike, says union spokesman

Transdev offer ‘heartfelt apology’ to commuters over Luas strike


What do these headlines have in common?
(1) Transport workers’ strikes are framed in terms of ‘travel disruption’ (and not, say 
worker-boss relations). Some media outlets up the ante and describe the disruption as 
‘travel chaos’, ‘commuter chaos’ or ‘travel mayhem’. Note the association here between 
striking and irrationality, between workers’ collective action and madness. The media seem 
to be telling us, ‘The world was doing just fine, until you Luas workers refused to work’. 
Of course, we know this is untrue.

(2) Strikes are framed in terms of violence. Striking Luas workers do not just 
inconvenience travellers, apparently the strikes ‘hit’ them. Similarly, we are told that 
Luas drivers have been accused of ‘putting a gun to the head’ of the Workplace Relations 
Commission. (Regime Media line here is: ‘This strike is somehow dangerous and – of course 
- illegitimate. Shouldn’t the Minister for Transport be putting a halt to this? Won’t 
someone please think of the innocent commuters?!’).

(3) Striking Luas workers will not just impact Transdev profits, they will also ‘hit’ 
small and medium businesses in Dublin. (Regime Media really saying: ‘Look plebs, this 
whole money-making thing is really interconnected. If you stand up for yourselves and 
block the normal flow of events, it will cost the rest of us capitalists serious money. We 
are the best little country in the world to do business after all’).

(4) Workers standing up for themselves today should not be confused with workers standing 
up for themselves in the past. The men and women involved in the 1913 Lockout and the 1916 
Rising are all safely dead now. Luas workers shouldn’t interrupt the tourist and business 
opportunities associated with state commemorations. (Regime Media really saying: ‘How dare 
you threaten our 1916 centenary commemorations. How could you stoop so low? Don’t you know 
that they died for your freedom? YOUR FREEDOM! P.S. You Luas workers are no James 
Larkin-types. So get that out of your heads.’).

(5) Above all else, strikes are framed as boring. Strikes are not at all supposed to be an 
expression of our collective power, or our refusal to do the bidding of the rule of money. 
Strikes have the potential to be liberating, even exciting. But no, not in Ireland’s 
regime media. Inevitably, there is always ‘no end in sight’. The tram stoppages are set to 
continue for ‘MONTHS’. (Regime Media really saying: ‘Stop the madness and get back to work 
plebs. This is just going to drag on until you come to your senses’).

What is the Luas strike really about?
The Luas workers’ fight is all about resisting sub-contracted work and lower wages. They 
simply want the same conditions as other workers in similar grades and areas of work. 
Decent public transport with decent working conditions matters for our environment, our 
own working conditions, and our overall quality of life.
We have to resist the regime media’s anti-worker line on this strike and all strikes. The 
Luas workers shouldn't be left to fight on their own. SIPTU has the power to mobilise and 
win this vital strike!

Words: Tom Murray

http://www.wsm.ie/c/luas-strike-regime-media-bias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 6



The Taleb Sanaa from Morocco is one of the dozens of immigrants trapped in Greek detention 
center where detained for over 12 months. - The beginning Sanaa claimed her release after 
the 6-month detention, resisting the exemption scheme launched by state mechanisms on her. 
- Raise head and resisted with the inmates of against the poor detention conditions in 
hell of Greek and their vindictive incarceration extensions, a recent example of the 
massive abstention rations last November. - The mechanisms of hell throw up their revenge 
against the combative attitude of Sanaa Taleb not only arbitrarily extending the 
confinement and rejecting asylum applications, but the March 1 dragged into court with 
funny criminal charges because he did the obvious: he refused to consent and resisted the 
forcible deportation.

Negotiable will remain on the side of invisible this society.
Next to the enclosed immigrants in Greek but also in each migrant camp per territory. The 
common local and migrant struggles for dignity and freedom not fit either in detention 
centers or in "shelters". daily build solidarity and mutual respect, kinked daily racism 
and social cannibalism, actively defending the free movement of people across borders and 
fences, "checkpoints" and concentration camps.
Solidarity remains our precious weapon.

COMMUNITIES RACE dopa-MIGRANTS
WAR WAR OF THE BOSSES
CONCENTRATION-MOTOPOREIA:
FRIDAY 26/2, 17.00 KALOGIROU SQUARE (METRO DAPHNE)
SOLIDARITY CONCENTRATION:
TUESDAY 1/3, 9.00, COURTS EVELPIDON, KTIRIO 2
Coordination anarchist communities struggle south-east of Athens
Equivalent anarchist collective from Ano Glyfada-Greek-Argyroupoli
Initiative anarchist-anti-authoritarians from the foothills of Hymettus
Comrades-comrades from Ilioupoli
Libertarian haunt Oleander
http://sakana.espivblogs.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------